Jump to content
Science Forums

EWright

Members
  • Content Count

    660
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

EWright last won the day on February 8 2006

EWright had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About EWright

  • Rank
    Understanding
  • Birthday 07/29/1968
  1. There is no paradox if you understand my Theory of Temporal Relativity. :)
  2. So then would you argue that you have always existed and that you alway will? If so, where did you exist before you became a zygote?
  3. Einstein based his postulate on the speed of light, which, agreed, is dependent upon and equal to c. So you tell me then, why c exists as the rate at which massless objects travel. I say to you it is because this is the rate at which time arrives... at which the future becomes the past. No, it simply proposes and alternative reason for the basis of it. I do not imply that the speed of light causes clocks to move faster, quite the contrary. Clocks move faster or slower relative to the rate at which they move through time, which arrives at c. Your understanding of the CMBR is f
  4. Quote: Originally Posted by EWright You are right… yet the speed of light is the postulate upon which Einstein bases Special Relativity. Precisely, and hence the meaning of the quote that is my signature, and the basis of my Theory of Temporal Relativity. Originally Posted by EWright I didn’t say that SR or GR were the basis of this measurement. And how do you propose a particle has been still relative to the CMBR exactly? This statement contradicts the basis of relative motion. I don’t think so. There are some outright contradictions in your description. A particle located
  5. No -- then you would LIKE me to change the definition to fit your description. But the definition of a moment is singular in nature. You can divide units of time down to the pico-second, but a moment cannot exist both in the future present and the past. 12:00:01 cannot exist at 12:00:00 or 12:00:02 Everything. Is this not the subject of your inquiry? I'm just stating the answer in the simplest form. Ahhhhh... Fiction... I get it now. :)
  6. How about at the beginning... we have time :shrug:
  7. You are right… yet the speed of light is the postulate upon which Einstein bases Special Relativity. I didn’t say that SR or GR were the basis of this measurement. And how do you propose a particle has been still relative to the CMBR exactly? This statement contradicts the basis of relative motion. Agreed, time is relative. Agreed on a global proper time… I never suggested otherwise… this is the 13.7Gy figure in the global-universal sense. There is no “outside of the universe,” so this statement is irrelevant. While it is true that all objects have experienced different amounts
  8. Really? Am I chopped liver here? Did you even read my responses? :shrug: Sigh...
  9. I can think of a few other times humans make such sounds... anyone? anyone? Farris? Anyone...?
  10. Theory of Temporal Relativity - Part I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As science strives to bridge the gap between the micro of the quantum and the macro of the cosmos, we must of course examine at what point the laws between these two dualities break down. But perhaps more importantly, we must ask what binds the two together into one harmonious universe; what is the common denominator? The answer, it seems, should be the one thing that permeates the whole of the universe on all levels: the macro and the micro; the three known physical dim
  11. Inncorect, the very use of the word "moment," by definition, separates it from its past and future moments. The human perception of motion is the constant perception of the future becoming the past. Don't forget strong gravitational forces. No. In a basic sense, all that is moving locally to us in the absense of very high speeds or extreme gravity is moving through time at the same rate -- or rather, the rate that time arrives. The motion may vary in speed around us, but it does not produce a measurable variance in our day to day relation to time. No. If time and light
  12. Hey guys, Does anyone know of any space junk that make have re-entered earths atomosphere over the Midwest U.S. today? There are hundres of reports of seeing a bright burning light in the sky (no, not the sun). Didn't NASA lose a piece of something that was tethered too tightly within the last week or so that was expected to re-enter, destination unknown? Many thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...